I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.
Can be disabled or removed
could very well end democracy.
I'd argue that the forces that created the possibility of a Trump/Sanders presidency are more dangerous than those candidates individually. As such, a vote for Hillary is probably worse in the long term. At least Trump would be such a disaster that it would force change. Trump might not be back next time, but someone adept at harnessing pent-up frustration and anger sure will be.
You're assuming that there would BE a next time if Trump became President. I'm not certain that is a valid assumption
Given his reaction to criticism during this campaign, what would he do if China, Russia, or North Korea insulted him? I think there would be a very real possibility that Trump would order some action (either a deliberate diplomatic insult or an accidental faux pas or some good old fashioned saber rattling) in defense of his bruised ego that would escalate the situation to the point where a war of words would transition to a war of bullets or an economic battle. And if his Secretary of State tried to calm things down, I wouldn't be surprised if he told him or her "You're fired!"
When Trump is the 500 pound gorilla in the room, he's fully willing and able to throw his weight around. But when you put two or more gorillas in a room, if they become antagonistic towards one another it's probably not going to end well for one or all of the gorillas.
Deficient bridges aren’t necessarily falling down, but are in need of repair. Bridges are rated on a scale of zero to nine, with a top score meaning excellent condition. Scores of four or below are classified structurally deficient.
The current pace of investment would take 21 years to replace or upgrade all the deficient bridges.
If we can't (or don't want to contribute the resources to) repair or replace bridges that are structurally deficient, I submit we don't have the resources to install roadside sensors.
If you live in a state where the outcome of the presidential election is not in doubt, then voting for a third-party candidate is a sensible idea.
And when enough people in that "safe" state vote for a third-party candidate, suddenly the state isn't quite so "safe" any longer. Remember Brexit?
In an interview on BBC’s Victoria Live, one man who voted "Leave" said, "I didn’t think my vote was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to remain."
The man, who was introduced as Adam, said he is now "worried" because he assumed "Remain" would win. He added, "I think the period of uncertainty that we’re going to have for the next couple of months — that’s just been magnified now. So yeah, quite worried."
The trouble with money is it costs too much!